Keep in mind that the CogAT is not exactly the same as the KBIT (which, if I recall, is what your school administers for screening), so performance on a practice CogAT may not be predictive of the KBIT, for multiple reasons.
I would return to the question of utility. I generally advocate for testing when it does one or both of 1) provides access to services, resources, or placements of substantive value, or 2) helps to answer a question or elucidate a functional problem presenting itself.
At the moment, I see that there is some potential for meeting test 1, but that would hinge on the real value of the services accessed. Would 1.5 hours/week of gifted enrichment address her current daily perception of school as unengaging? She still has to be in the same school settings the other 10 to 25 or so hours a week (depending on whether it's half- or full-day K).
No IRL concerns are being reported that would meet test 2, but perhaps you have other information that would change that.
If you re-screen, and she still doesn't meet criteria, that doesn't change her need for additional academic and intellectual stimulation, and what other resources or supports would you be able to recruit for that? (After all, the verbal scores you reported previously still project academic advancement in language-based areas of about two grade-levels, plus or minus, even if they don't meet arbitrary GT criteria.)
